Skip to main content
Glama

artic

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations are all false and provide no safety context, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token flow, rate limit ('5 per identifier per day'), quota exemption, daily team review, and roadmap impact. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place—purpose, use cases, exclusions, formatting guidance, token workflow, rate limits, and ROI. It's front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then branches into necessary detail without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, exclusions, message formatting, claim_token lifecycle, rate limiting, and team behavior. It even clarifies what to avoid ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). Nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful param context beyond the schema: it explains the claim_token round-trip ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), suggests message length ('1-2 sentences typical'), and elaborates on the 'type' enum use cases. This extra context pushes it above baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it's a feedback channel for Pipeworx tools only, with explicit examples (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). This is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise).' Also gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is textbook usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All artic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying sources, and six polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have blurry boundaries. The four art museum tools are entirely unrelated to the data-research tools, adding confusion to the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and generally readable, but the verb-object pattern is not consistent: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe) sit alongside verb-first names (get_artwork, validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges, ai_visibility_check). The repeated prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_) do provide some structure.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is overstuffed. The core Pipeworx data and Polymarket analytics surface alone would justify roughly 20 tools, but memory management, subscription lifecycle, llms.txt generation, npm dependency scanning, claim validation, and Art Institute of Chicago lookups are unrelated additions that push the count well beyond a focused scope.

Completeness4/5

Each functional cluster is fairly complete on its own: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, data lookup has casual, grounded, deep, and validation modes, and prediction markets cover research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking, and cross-venue spreads. The issue is not missing capabilities but the lack of a single coherent domain.

Resources